Download Les outils pour faciliter la prise de décisions en marketing stratégique

Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Les outils pour faciliter la prise de décisions en marketing stratégique
Tatiana BOUZDINE-CHAMEEVA
Professeur
BEM Bordeaux Management School - Decision Management Performance
[email protected]
1
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Les outils pour faciliter la prise de décisions en marketing stratégique
Résumé (FR):
Le marché mondial devenant global sans frontières avance la question de priorités de valeurs
pour les organisations. La quête des priorités, souvent inhérentes dans le marketing, exige une
réflexion stratégique pour les actions marketing et plus de consensus qui est important pour
l'engagement d'employés et managers. Les organisations font face aux défis d’une prise de
décision en groupe pour décisions stratégiques en marketing. Notre objectif est de comparer
les méthodes SSM, SC, SODA qui facilitent le travail de groupe dans un processus de prise de
décision en mettant un accent sur leur valeur ajoutée pour les situations du marketing
stratégique.
Mots clés : marketing stratégique, modélisation marketing
Facilitation tools for group decision-making process
Abstract (EN):
The globalized borderless world market has put forward the question of value priorities for
organizations. This quest for the priorities, frequently inherent in marketing actions, requires
strategic thinking in marketing decisions and more consensuses in decision-making style, as
the commitment of management and employees becomes vital. Organizations start facing
challenges of group decision-making for strategic marketing decisions. The purpose of our
research is to identify the facilitation techniques developed for assisting this process and
making it efficient. We present the three methods, SSM, SC and SODA emphasising their
value added by interpersonal aspects of intellectual process imperative in strategic marketing.
Key words: strategic marketing, modeling marketing
2
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
INTRODUCTION
Marketing has always played a vital role in the strategic management process of a
firm; failures in marketing cause serious problems in achieving goals established by a strategy
plan of an organization. Over the last few years, we observe crucial changes in the world of
strategic marketing decisions (Webster, 1997). The globalization process urges organizations
to face the numerous ambitious tasks in creating value (see e.g. Herriot et al, 2002). It imposes
new ways of thinking (Mattsson, 2008) by accelerating business exchanges on national and
international levels, harmonizing and homogenizing world standards for products and services,
pushing forward the innovative processes, revealing the collective awareness about ecological
problems and social viability, questioning the sustainable development.
Organizations are forced to a transformation, and the changes necessitate a collective
response. This changing borderless world market, which enters into recession and severe
economic crisis, harshly interrogates the value priorities of organizations (Trinquecoste, 2008).
How to elaborate effective and coherent marketing actions and contribute into company’s
profit within a market segment going through financial difficulties? Which priorities to prevail
when reconsidering strategy marketing plan in the situation of a 15% monthly decrease of
orders?
The quest for the priorities, frequently inherent in marketing actions, requires strategic
approach to marketing decisions and more consensuses in decision-making as the
commitment of management and employees’ becomes vital. There appears a strong need for a
collective action in strategic marketing decisions (Bowman and Ambrosini, 2000;
Weerawardena, 2003).
Organizations start facing challenges of group decision-making for strategic marketing
decisions (Mattsson, 2008). The purpose of our research is to identify the facilitation
techniques developed for assisting the group decision-making process in complex situations to
make this process efficient and effective, compare them and recognize the value of these
techniques for applications in strategic marketing decision settings.
3
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
CHALLENGES OF GROUP DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
Group decision-making is known as a complex phenomenon which aims at coming to
a judgment based upon the feedback of multiple individuals forming a group. Nowadays such
process becomes a key component in a search for strategic marketing actions and in the
functioning of an organization.
Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds (Surowiecki, 2005) argues that groups are
remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them. He further
argues that wise “crowds” need to have diversity of opinion, independence of members from
one another, decentralization, and a good method for aggregating opinions. He contends that
if these four conditions are met, the collective intelligence of the group will produce better
outcomes than several experts working independently.
Active interactions and discussions within the group present an important stage in the
decision-making process: different opinions confronting, various arguments sorting out
(Kaner et al., 2007). Due to this dynamic view exchange, a shared vision on the discussed
subject finally emerges. Active participation of group members in the discussion and their
contribution into the final decisions become vital for their future commitment to the suggested
actions.
The process depends much on personal determination, complexity of the problem,
group dynamics, leadership skills, and other rational and irrational factors (e.g. Luce et al,
1999). The success of the decision-making process is not just measured by an acceptable
decision made. It is crucial that all participants that are involved in the process, participate in
discussion, understand the arguments of others, share the decision made. The group must be
sure that it has created a climate in which individuals feel they have been able to express their
views and they have been listened. Then all members feel obligated to go along with the
decision and implement it.
However managers often like to believe that they are accomplished in the group
decision-making processes though instead of achieving a consensus they often lead the group
to situations such as decision-making by authority role or by lack of response. The better way
to achieve consensus in these processes is to track how decisions are made and ensure that
they are achieved by true consultation. This could be attained due to facilitation.
Facilitation used in business and organisational settings is one of the well-developed
practices in group decision-making processes to avoid such situations as mentioned earlier.
4
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
There exist numerous facilitation tools, methods and techniques developed for assisting the
process and making it as efficient and effective as possible (e.g. Bens, 2005).
We will present and compare the three methods, SSM, SC and SODA calling attention
to their interpersonal aspects of intellectual process; we will also discuss the impact of using
mapping as a facilitation tool to lend structure to the process of group decision-making.
Strategic marketing actions are characterised (e.g. Aaker, 1992; Greenley et al., 2004; Hooley
et al., 1998; Mattson, 2008) by numerous challenges (the firm values, the customer
motivations, financial performance, impact on other firm’s function, etc.) and numerous
uncertainties (e.g. Baker, 1996) needed to be handled (the market, the competitors, the risks,
the profitability potential, etc.) in marketing actions. We will analyse how the presented tools
could enhance the value priorities quest in organisations emphasising their value for strategic
marketing settings.
FACILITATING TOOLS
Over the past two decades much research has been done on examining decisionmaking in groups in terms of a process and in terms of an outcome. There is a large body of
literature written by organisational behaviour researchers on organising an efficient group
work (e.g. Axelrod, 1976; Winch, 1995; Bloom, 2000; Schwarz, 2002; Kaner, 2007).
Organisational research studies focus on elaborating different conceptual models of decisionmaking process like autocratic or by authority rule, majority (or plurality) versus collegial
model, supportive versus a model by voting and others (for a review, see Winch, 1995).
Facilitating group processes in a face-to-face meeting has been intensively explored by
the specialists in the IS and strategic management fields. Many group decision–support
systems (GDSS) and tools have been developed to assist and improve the decision-making
process in different problem situations of business and organisational settings (see for
example www.cbe.wwu.edu/gdn/ gdn.htm).
These works serve a basis for our study of
facilitation techniques applicable in strategic marketing context.
The conventional stages of the decision process in a group (see Figure 1) are the
following: framing the problem, gathering intelligence about the problem, coming to
conclusion with a decision and learning from experience. Facilitation tools can help users at
each step of the process and bring them to a best solution for the discussed problem. Some of
the facilitating tools are interactive computer based systems.
5
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Figure1. The stages of the group decision process (adapted from Russo, 2002).
If we consider strategic marketing settings, the first and the very important stage is
related to a correct formulation or framing the problem (Montgomery and Weinberg, 1991).
At this stage, maximum aspects of the studying situation should be discovered. To come up
with the best possible decision a group involved into the strategic marketing decision-making
process must clearly define the priorities of values. Strategic marketing decisions are complex
by their nature; they are based on the analysis of market and markets segments, customer
interests, and the purchases process, on the examination of the company’s strengths and
competences and perspectives in a long-term horizon. The aspects that will remain hidden or
the values which will be left aside at this stage will not be considered during the further stages
of the decision-making process; and the final strategic marketing decision could be
handicapped in relations to these undetected aspects and unrevealed values.
The second stage of the decision-making process in strategic marketing setting will
focus on gathering information, or more generally speaking, gathering intelligence on the
market and the firm interests, the general trends, customer needs and motivations, financial
performance, the latest changes in customer base, etc. The diverging feature of this stage is
important for getting a holistic picture of a problem.
At the third stage of “Coming to Conclusions” in the strategic marketing decisionmaking, a diversity of opinions, decentralization and independence of members in a group
(representing different units of the organizational structure) become vital for a final wellthought solution of marketing actions to be implemented. A role of facilitator or the use of
facilitating tools at this stage could be fundamental.
6
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
The stage of “Learning from Experience” is important in terms of group learning. In a
long-term perspective of an organisation, the scenarios analyzed by the group during the
decisions-making process could help a group to make better decision in their future strategic
marketing planning.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
Among the facilitation methods that are applied successfully in group settings for
making decisions on managing complex situations, the main three methodologies attract our
attention relating to specific characteristics of strategic marketing context. They are soft
systems methodology (SSM), strategic choice (SC), and strategic options development and
analysis (SODA) ( Eden and Ackermann, 2006).
SSM, developed in 1981, is a way of dealing with problems, which contain numerous
social, political and human activity components (Checkland and Scholes, 1999;
http://sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng /613/F/grp4/ssmfinal.html).
We consider that this
methodology fits well to the strategic marketing decision settings.
The methodology is divided into several stages. The first step concerns the finding out
about the problem situation and presents an introduction into the problem area: Who are the
stakeholders, key actors? How does the system function now? The next step focuses on
expressing the problem situation through "rich pictures", worth by far several hundreds of
words. It is an important stage in viewing the situation and producing root definitions. Here
the focus is on different perspectives from which a group can look at this problem.
An analogy is apparent with strategic marketing planning, which searches answers on
traditional questions: What needs or problems cause customers to consider buying from our
company? What improvement in the customer’s personal or business life can we unable or
improve? Which customer market segments are attracted to our company or products? Which
motivation or values lead people to decide for purchasing our products? What are the latest
changes in our customer base? What are general trends affecting the general interests towards
products like ours?
It comes into sight that the SSM could be a useful tool at the first stage of Framing a
Problem in a strategic marketing decision-making process. This facilitation tool will help to
discover different views on the problem. The key point is to focus on meshing overall
customer situations with an overall company direction, goals and priority values.
7
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Getting the perception of what the system, or in our case, the organization, must do for
each root definition, and building somehow a conceptual model of the situation, the group will
move to the next stage in the facilitation process to a further comparison of the conceptual
model with the real world. Comparing a rich picture and a conceptual model contributes to
the identification of feasible and desirable changes: Are there ways of improving the
situation?
At the next step, a group works on recommendations for taking an action to improve
the problem situation. Finally a group accomplishes a decision-making process with the ways
of implementing the suggested changes.
Strategic Choice (SC) tool
The SC approach has proved to be extremely efficient in face- to -face workshops of a
decision making group when the planned management of uncertainty plays a crucial role
(Friend and Hickling, 1988; www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ dstools/choosing/strach.html). The
focus of this approach is on planning situations whatever their timescale and whatever their
substance. A methodology helps to move a group to agreeing how to handle the uncertainties,
whether these are technical, political or procedural.
The approach to a decision-making in SC is an incremental one, rather than one which
looks at an end product of a comprehensive strategy at some future point in time. A
framework presents an explicit balance between decisions to be made now and those to be left
open until specified time horizons to be determined in the future.
In our understanding, this describes the necessities of strategic marketing planning
where some marketing actions should be planned in a closer timescale while other are
dependent on numerous uncertainties that should be handled. As nowadays, the economic
difficulties through which companies are going through because of the financial crisis, the SC
facilitation tool appear to be one of the most appropriate for strategic marketing planning to be
applied in such an uncertain market environment.
Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) tool
A decision-support tool of SODA, is a method developed for facilitating group
decision-making work on strategic issues and complex problems (Eden, 1989;
(www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/dstools/control/soda.html )
8
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
SODA uses interviews and cognitive mapping to capture individual knowledge or
view of an issue. A typical decision model structure in this approach facilitates negotiation
about value/goal systems, key strategic issues, and option portfolios (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. A typical decision model structure in SODA (from Banxia Ltd. "Decision Explorer
http://www.banxia.com/demain.html
)
As well as problem content, attention is paid to the affective, political, and process dynamics
in the group.
The strategic marketing planning passes through the three major stages (Doyle, 1994;
Porter, 1996): situational analysis, marketing objectives and marketing strategies. These three
stages correspond perfectly to the three levels of decision model in SODA approach: goals,
objectives and options/actions available. The three questions asked for facilitation decisionmaking in SODA: “Where do we want to go? Why do we want to get there? How could we
get there and achieve our objectives?” respond to the classic examinations of strategic
marketing planning: “Where is the company now? Where does the company want to go?
What should be done to achieve these objectives? How the suggesting marketing actions
correspond to company’s goals, reflect company’s priorities and contribute to company’s
values?”
9
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
SODA provides a group with a kind of an intellectual device, working with
individuality and subjectivity as the basis for problem definition and creativity. The method is
aimed more at small groups and focuses on developing high levels of ownership for a problem.
Rich models generated by SODA manage the growing complexity along the decision-making
process.
Comparison of the presented facilitation tools
Each of the methods is settled by data that are specific to the problem decision-making
context. It is contrasted to conceptual decision-making models used by organizational
behaviour and organizational development consultants. For the overall productivity of group
decision-making process, these methods suppose and assure ample participation from
members of a group that is helpful in constructing better agreements and coming to a
consensus decision. Agreements constructed by a group are more likely to be implemented.
The three methods are concerned of managing the resultant complexity along the
process. This complexity derives from multiple perspectives; the attention to complexity seeks
to avoid errors of the third kind—solving 'the wrong problem when one should have solved
the right problem' as well as ensuring both procedural justice (Kim and Mauborgne, 1995) and
procedural rationality. This feature makes these tools credible for applications in strategic
marketing settings.
The facilitation of an effective group process pays account to the power and politics
recognizing that it is not only natural for different people to have different perspectives on a
problem, but also that organizations are designed to encourage this (Shaw, 2006). The
challenges of numerous ambitious tasks in creating value require the participation of different
experts in strategic marketing – decision making process. This enables to obtain synergy of
different perspectives in a final solution.
The facilitation methods discussed above rely strongly on facilitations skills. The
significance of facilitation skills in reaching agreements and coming to a consensus decision
demand many different roles for a facilitation (Richardson and Andersen, 1995). These roles
include the ability to manage process and content skills, as well as having sufficient flexibility
and knowledge of the applied method to meet the group's needs (Eden and Ackermann, 2006).
A wide range of research studies using the facilitation methods mentioned above can
be illustrated by group decision-making in hospital management (Checkland, 2001); business
process redesign (Ormerod, 1999); policy making for liquefied petroleum gas (Hickling,
10
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
2001); strategy development in wine sector (Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2006); technology-based
solution to knowledge management problems (Edwards et al, 2005) and others. This rich
variety of applications of facilitation methods proves their extreme utility for solving business
and management problems of different nature in diverse group- decision-making settings.
Few applications of facilitation tools in strategic marketing studies exist by now, they
certainly merit being mentioned (Durrieu et al, 2006; Trinquecoste, 2005; Mattsson, 2008).
USING MAPPING TO FACILITATE GROUP WORK
Facilitating a process of decision-making supposes contributing structure and process
to interactions in a group. By lending structure, it facilitates in getting a better perception of
the problem, in reaching agreements, it helps in the functioning of the group, and finally in
contributes strongly in the identification and resolution of problems,
One of the effective tools widely used in facilitating for structuring a problem is
mapping. Generally speaking, mapping focuses people on the concepts and links they use to
make sense of their world. Managers get used to apply maps in several ways: as a diagnostic
tool to focus attention on the root causes of a problem (Evans, 2005), for identifying the
critical control points (the levers) for a system (Kaplan & Norton, 2004), to guide risk
management and risk mitigation efforts (Card, 1998), for formulating and communicating
strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2004).
Using mapping in strategic marketing planning is in some sense similar to using street
maps which help to locate in space, in this case, in conceptual space, help figure out what
directions to take, help visualise what pathways exist from here to there, where are free spaces,
and crossroads and help understand how they should move to the established goal. In a more
formal term, a map is "a visual representation; that establishes a landscape, or domain; names
the most important entities that exist within that domain; and simultaneously places them
within two or more relationships. “More complex maps and suggest options for movement
and change" (Huff, Jenkins, 2001).
When a facilitator is using a causal map as a problem-structuring tool, the preferred
direction may emerge naturally from a process of negotiation (see an example of a causal map
in Figure 3).
11
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Figure 3. Example of a causal map
A cognitive map presents an individual’s mental model of the relationships (causal or
otherwise) among the elements of a system. Being used as a group decision-making
facilitation tool, it contributes into shared understanding and into shared commitment of group
members to the finale elaborated decision or plan of actions.
In a group setting mapping can b used either during the group meeting or prior to a
group meetings when individual maps of group members are collected and synthesized into a
consensus causal map. Assisting the group-decision making process through eliciting and
representing domain knowledge of individuals forming a group, and mapping this knowledge
becomes one of prospective tools for strategic marketing settings.
A broad range of research has investigated a collective perception reflected in a causal
map using the ideographic approach (e.g. Eden and Ackerman, 1998; Brown, 1992; Verstraete,
1997, Cosette, 2003). Another large stream of researches based their studies referring to the
nomothetic approach (e.g., Nadkarni and Nah, 2003; Sheetz and Tegarden, 2001).
Following Tan and Hunter (2002) the idiographic approach “focuses on the subjective
experiences of the individual and presents results in expressions and terms used by the
individual” whereas the nomothetic approach “necessitates the use of a common set of
elements and/or constructs to permit comparisons to be made.”
12
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Several recent research studies suggest systematic procedures and methodologies that
combine these two approaches in a group decision-making setting (Nadkarni and Nah, 2003;
Scavarda, et al., 2006). An idiographic approach used for constructing a causal map is consent
to capture unique, subjective knowledge and individual perception using in-depth interviews,
and it is not bound by predefined variables. The obtained collective causal map can be
validated further on by the use of nomothetic methods with a purpose to confirm a priori
determined, widely accepted and generalized assumptions relating to a specific domain
(Nadkarni and Nah, 2003).
Numerous methodologies and software tools can be used for creating causal maps. The
basic process for creating a causal map based on principles of content analysis is: defining the
models and content (sources of data) to be examined; defining the content domain and
variables of interest (to create a common language for a group and establish internal validity
between the data and the group’s conceptualization of the data); data coding; establishing the
reliability of the coding process and finally a tabulation of results in a visual map.
A systematic procedure integrates both the idiographic and nomothetic approaches in
eliciting, aggregating, comparing and validating the knowledge of individuals in a form of
several consensus maps ( see Figure 4.).
Figure 4. Stages of constructing a consensus causal map (based on Bouzdine-Chameeva, 2007).
The idiographic approach is used to elicit and aggregate the individual knowledge of
subject-matter experts and the nomothetic approach to validate the elicited knowledge in a
form of a final consensus causal map. Such maps serve an excellent basis for starting a group
discussion on making decision for strategic marketing planning.
13
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
FUTURE TRENDS
There is an increasing need to develop a trans-disciplinary approach for facilitating
group decision-making process in strategic marketing decisions. This should bring together
marketing, social psychology and mathematics, strategic management and logic, human
resources management in terms reward and costing systems, organization theory for observing
power and politics issues, and information science in terms of visual interactive modelling to
aid facilitation and provide breadth of modelling options.
Future development of mapping tools and applications in strategic marketing could
incorporate the possibility of identifying similar perceptions of individuals in a group and
similar causality paths. This could facilitate a group-decision-making process contributing
decision options to be presented for a further evaluation and inclusion into strategic marketing
plans. Spatial mapping could yield segmentation and assist in a enhanced understanding of the
nature of proximity in views of group members. Several possible paths could then be
examined and proposed for a further implementation either in a consequent or a parallel way
through specific marketing actions.
CONCLUSIONS
Being a key component in the functioning of an organization, its strategic development
and organisational performance, a group decision-making process in strategic marketing
settings could considerably gain in efficiency and effectiveness due to the existing facilitation
methods, like SSM, SC and SODA. In some sense the three facilitation methods of groupdecision making process described above can be considered as intellectual devices for
strategic marketing planning. They put emphasis on intellectual processes in which a group
uses these methods to help with sense-making in the search for marketing decisions and
actions.
The three tools exposed in the paper can be used on each of the three first stages of the
decision-making process – for framing the problem with an accent on the use of the SSM tool
known for its strong perceptive features and conceptual model building, for gathering
information, where the SM tool can be particularly useful due its capacity to capture
uncertainties and at the stage of coming to conclusions, at which the SODA approach could
has some preferences over the other presented tools as it allows to clearly define the priorities
of values and align the suggested strategic marketing actions with these priorities.
14
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
The application of facilitation methods, GDSS tools and mapping techniques
contribute structure and process of the group work, create a fruitful climate in which
individuals express their views and are able to understand, share views and arrive at a
collective vision reflected in a consensus decision (or in a consensus causal map). This is a
final goal of a successfully accomplished group decision-making process in strategic
marketing situations.
REMERCIEMENTS
J’adresse mes sincères remerciements au professeur Jean-Francois Trinquecoste qui a
stimulé mon intérêt envers les domaines du marketing et motivé mes recherches sur la
différence des approches utilisés pour les décisions stratégique et les décisions tactiques en
marketing.
Je voudrais aussi remercie le professeur Thierry Verstraete avec qui nos discussions
ont enrichi mes connaissances des applications de la cartographie cognitive pour les études en
stratégie.
15
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
REFERENCES
Aaker D.A. (1992), Strategic Market Management, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Axelrod R. (1976), Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Baker M. (1996), Marketing strategy, In Warner, M. (Eds), International Encyclopaedia of
Business and Management, Routledge, London and New York, 333-347.
Bens I. (2005), Advanced Facilitation Strategies: Tools and Techniques to Master Difficult
Situations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bloom H. (2000), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st
Century. Wiley, John & Sons.
Bouzdine-Chameeva T., (2006), Strategies of Bordeaux wine sector: comparison based on
group decision-making, British Food Journal, 108, 4, 273-289.
Bouzdine-Chameeva T. (2007), The ANCOM-2 Solution to support knowledge work,
International Business Management, 1, 2, 12-19.
Bowman C., Ambrosini V. (2000), Value creation versus value capture: towards a coherent
definition of value in strategy, British Journal of Management, 11 1, 1-15.
Brown S.M. (1992), Cognitive Mapping and Repertory Grids for Qualitative Survey
Research: Some Comparative Observations, Journal of Management Studies, 29, 3, 287-305.
Checkland P., Scholes J. (1999), Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons.
Cossette P. (2003), Cartes cognitives et organisations. Les Editions d’Adreg, Laval, Canada.
Doyle P. (1994), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice Hall International Limited,
Hemel Hempstead.
Durrieu F., Bouzdine-Chameeva T. (2006), Les cartes cognitives: méthodologie pour tester le
positionnement d'une winerie à Bordeaux, In Actes de Colloque "Oenometrie-XIII", Bordeaux.
Eden C. (1989), Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development, In Rational
Analysis for a Problematic World', Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.) Wiley.
Eden, C., F. Ackermann (1998), Making Strategy: A Journey of Strategic Management, Sage
Publications, London.
Eden C., Ackermann F. (2006), Where next for problem structuring methods, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 57, 766–768.
Edwards J.S., Shaw D., and Collier P.M. (2005), Knowledge management systems: finding a
way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 113–125.
16
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Friend J. and Hickling A. (1988), Planning under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach,
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 11, 1067-1068.
Greenley G.E., Hooley G.J., Broderick A.J., Rudd J.M. (2004), Strategic planning differences
among multiple stakeholder orientations profiles, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12, 163-182.
Herriot P., Scott-Jackson W. (2002), Globalization, social identities and employment, British
Journal of Management, 13 3, 249-57.
Hooley G.J., Saunders J.A., Piercy N.F. (1998), Marketing Strategy and Competitive
Positioning, Prentice Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead.
Huff A., Jenkins M. (2001), Mapping strategy, London, Wiley.
Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi C. (2007), Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-making,
Jossey-Bass.
Kim W.C., Mauborgne R.A (1995), A procedural justice model of strategic decision making,
Organization Science, 6, 44–61.
Luce M.F., Payne J.W., Battman J.R. (1999), Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice,
Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 5,143-59.
Mattsson, J. (2008), True Marketing: A Value Based Philosophy for Strategic Marketing,
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16, 3, 175-188.
Montgomery D.B., Weinberg C.B. (1991), Toward strategic intelligence, In Enis B.M., Cox
K.K. (Eds), Marketing Classics: A Selection of Influential Articles, Allyn&Bacon, Boston.
Montibeller G., Belton V. (2006), Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a
review, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 779–791.
Nadkarni S. and Nah F.F-H. (2003), Aggregated causal maps: an approach to elicit and
aggregate the knowledge of multiple experts, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 12, 406-436.
Ormerod R.J. (1999), Putting soft OR methods to work: the case of the business improvement
project at PowerGen, European Journal of Operational Research, 118, 1–29
Porter M.E. (1996), What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, Nov-December, 61-78.
Richardson G., Andersen D.F. (1995), Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics
Revue, 11, 113–137.
Russo J. E., and Schoemaker P. (2002), Winning Decisions, New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Scavarda A.J., Bouzdine-Chameeva T., Goldstein S.M., Hays J.M., Hill A. V. (2006), A
methodology for constructing collective causal maps, Decision Sciences Journa, 37,2,263-284.
17
Actes du 25e Congrès International de l’AFM – Londres, 14 et 15 mai 2009
Schwarz R., (2002), The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants,
Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches, Wiley, John & Sons.
Shaw D. (2006), Journey Making group workshops as a research tool, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 57, 830–841.
Sheetz S. D. and Tegarden D. P. (2001), Representing managerial cognition using a group
cognitive mapping system, Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2001.
Surowiecki J. (2005), The Wisdom of Crowds, Anchor.
Tan F.B. and Hunter M.G. (2002), The Repertory Grid Technique: A Method for the Study of
Cognition in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, 26, 1, 39-57.
Trinquecoste J.F. (2005), Marketing, stratégie et rhétorique, Décision Marketing, 37, 3-5.
Trinquecoste J.F. (2008), Marketing, éthique et responsabilité sociale: Mousquetaires du roi
ou garde du cardinal, In
"Responsabilité, éthique et logique marchande", Edition EMS
Management & Societe.
Verstraete T. (1997), Cartographie cognitive et accompagnement du créateur d'entreprise,
Revue Internationale PME, 10, 1, 17-33.
Webster F.E. (1997), The future role of marketing, In Lehman, D.R., Jocz, K.E. (Eds),
Reflections on the Future of Marketing, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, 39-66.
Weerawardena J. (2003), The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive
strategy, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 15-35.
Winch G. W. (1995), Developing consensus: reflections on a model-supported decision
process, Management Decision, 33, 6, 22-31.
18